<p>Dolan mentioned her name. But no, don’t know.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bioportfolio.com/news/article/1768955/Terri-Schiavo-Life-and-Hope-Network-Jahi-McMath-Supporters-Pressing-for-Release.html[/url]”>http://www.bioportfolio.com/news/article/1768955/Terri-Schiavo-Life-and-Hope-Network-Jahi-McMath-Supporters-Pressing-for-Release.html</a></p>
<p>
And this is where I respond that we “tie up” thousands of times as many resources on hopelessly terminal, senile, bedridden elders every day, and no one says a word. And you respond “But she’s DEAD!” And I say, well, her brain is dead, which means she’s legally dead, but her body is alive, so turning off the ventilator is a policy decision that the family should have a right to reject as long as they do it on their own dime. And you respond “But she’s DEAD!”</p>
<p>And we get comments like this:
In fact, this girl’s body is no different from the body of a person in a coma or in a PVS, which makes this statement really pretty silly, because her care is no different than what they do in those other cases. To which you respond, “But she’s DEAD!” and make silly comments about “voodoo”, etc.
That’s not what I said. Just because you don’t understand the issue doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The “correct” course of action is not always the one a professional should take, for a variety of reasons. And one of them is that the decision is properly in the hands of the person involved, not the professional. That is an ethical decision. There are times when the professional has the right to refuse to take a course of action which is demanded by a client/patient/family - where it is harmful or illegal, for example. But there are times when the client/patient/family has the right to go against the advice of the professional - even if they’re “wrong” - because of their own beliefs. And if the course the client/patient/family chooses doesn’t harm anyone else the professional should have a good reason for refusing - and “you’re wrong and I’m right” generally isn’t one. And when the professional refuses to assist, he/she should at least not prevent others from stepping in and taking over.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, you reject the nuances I see because you refuse to address the freedom/compulsion issue which I see as central. As far as you’re concerned, the only thing that matters is that the family is “wrong” (as “types” like them often are) and therefore should be forced to acquiesce in what you think is “right.” Well, I think they’re “wrong”, too, and I agree, from that perspective, there isn’t much nuance. But from the perspective of how far should we go to force people to pull the plug on their loved ones whose hearts are still beating I see lots of area for considered thought.</p>
<p>Again, I understand the appeal of bright line rules. Many here see one between senile, bedridden elders - on whom we lavish billions, including many cases of extreme and expensive medical intervention - and the handful of brain dead youngsters. I don’t see that line as being as bright (or perhaps as wise) as others. I see difficult issues of morality and cost which are ignored in favor of a “line.”</p>
<p>[Girl</a> declared brain dead moved from hospital](<a href=“Girl declared brain dead moved from hospital”>Girl declared brain dead moved from hospital)</p>
<p>Well, that was probably the most unusual 30 minutes I have ever spent listening to news.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lots of people say lots of words about this! You make it sounds like everyone accepts futile end of life care. That’s far from the truth. End of life decisions are difficult. Doctors are busy, and some are not good at communicating with families. Families are confused, awash in a sea of new terminology and previously unknown procedures-- they don’t necessarily have a rational understanding of the consequences of what they’re consenting to. The whole medical system at the end of life is byzantine.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean we are in favor of futile end of life care. It means we find it difficult to change a big complicated system with a lot of actors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For a lawyer, I’m surprised you don’t understand the legal liability a doctor has. “I recommended that the patient do X in accordance with professional guidelines and the standard of care in this situation, but she really, really wanted Y with a cherry on top, so I did Y” doesn’t hold up very well in a court of law. Are you really not aware that the FIRST thing a lawyer will do is say – “You did Y because that’s what your patient wanted, even though the professional guidelines right here for your specialty clearly say to do X? Who was the doctor here, you or the patient?” I think you’re living in a world in which doctors can just acquiesce to patient demands and if there is a bad outcome, the patient cheerfully says - well, my bad, I asked the doctor to do it that way so I have no one to blame but myself. That isn’t the real world. There are PLENTY of patients who will insist something be their way AND reserve the right to hang the doctor if there’s a bad outcome by claiming they “didn’t understand” and he “should have insisted.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And be excused from liability, I hope. Again, you can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>Here is the link to the redacted copy of the Stanford doc’s report - someone upthread has asked about it:</p>
<p><a href=“http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/Fisher+-+Redacted+Rpt_1.pdf[/url]”>http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/Fisher+-+Redacted+Rpt_1.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s factually incorrect. This girl’s body is decomposing. Her brain has turned to mush, her skin is decomposing, and numerous other organs have failed. That’s what happens when the brain and brainstem are gone.</p>
<p>Dolan, the lawyer, now admits that Jahi’s body is “in bad shape.” Many people are not surprised that the body of a child who has been dead for almost a month would be in bad shape.</p>
<p>Yes, CF but he added that she is finally getting nutrition and is on antibiotics. We are beyond bizarre, now. imho.</p>
<p>I would find this part completely more traumatizing than the initial death! Let’s just hope she’s not having her other kids around to watch their sister decompose in front of their eyes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Patently false, kluge. Stick to what you know, because now you are speaking out of your scope, and that’s a very polite way of saying it.</p>
<p>Is Jahi at her mom’s house? Am I understanding that correctly?</p>
<p>I’ve always been in favor of making sure that the family’s rights were respected, but if this is the case, then this is starting to enter the realm of Norman Bates. Am I misunderstanding where she is now?</p>
<p>I think she is an undisclosed facility.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, the body is at an undisclosed location.</p>
<p>They didn’t say where she is because of privacy and threats. But no planes were involved so the best guess in somewhere in CA.</p>
<p>This is such an unusual case, which may seem easy to attribute to the family, but they aren’t the first ones to decline to discontinue “life” support in the face of brain death. I personally know a family who took 45 days to come to terms with unplugging their brain dead child, and the hospital trached and placed a g-tube. There was no legal battle, just time in a horrible situation. Perhaps that amount of time would have led this family to the same decision. Ethically, I don’t see harm in giving people time when the brain is dead and thus suffering or further harm is not a consideration.</p>
<p>They wouldn’t be the first family to be concerned that the decision is being pushed because of organ donor considerations. There are lots of people who believe that “brain dead” is thrown around too lightly in order to satisfy the needs of other patients. This might particularly compelling when a child’s organs are involved.</p>
<p>The hospital can’t just remove organs from dead bodies. They family would have to consent. There is no logic to that statement.</p>
<p>In the KQED interview I linked above, the Stanford pediatrician noted that pediatric ICU beds are in short supply, and sometimes procedures have to be delayed until there is a bed available. Would you want to be the parent of the sick kid who couldn’t get her necessary surgery because a dead person was taking up the ICU bed she needed?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those people are still ALIVE! Jahi is NOT! There is NO COMPARISON. NONE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The logic is that they can’t have the organs if they don’t ask and they can’t ask unless the donor will not recover so they “decide” that the donor will not recover. I don’t believe in that conspiracy theory but there are people who do. My mom warned me not to let my D be an organ donor because she is not convinced that the “brain dead” diagnosis is not rushed in order to accommodate organ needs.</p>